A court decision was made in Saskatchewan on Tuesday regarding whether a Public Health Order (PHO) was broken by a “Freedom Rally” back in 2020 in Saskatoon during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seven defendants were listed in the case, two of which were Mark Friesen and Tamara Lavoie.
The court document said the rally was held Dec. 19, 2020, at the Vimy Memorial in Kiwanis Park in Saskatoon, noting that advertising for the event billed it as a “Freedom Rally.”
Public health measures were in place to contain the epidemic at the time, with the PHO that the defendants were accused of breaking having been created on Dec. 14.
That order prohibited outdoor gatherings of more than 10 people.
The judgement document said there were two main sources of evidence against the defendants: Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) Constable Mitchell, who observed the rally over SPS video, and a video that was shot and narrated by Lavoie.
It was noted that Lavoie discharged her lawyer several months ago and chose to represent herself. She didn’t appear at the trial – the document noted that the trial continued on without her. She was found guilty and sentenced.
The document said well over 10 people were at the rally.
“It would be inconceivable for any participant to suggest that they thought the number was 10 or less,” the document read.
It was noted that the remaining defendants took issue with officers using the SGI database to identify the defendants.
The judgement found that there was no evidence from the defendants that this information would be private. SGI’s privacy statement says the company can share information without consent to police for things like enforcing the law and investigations.
The Traffic Safety Act notes that a copy of a driver’s photograph can be given to an officer, and information can also be shared as per the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The document said the defendants claimed that the PHO was too vague.
“The defendants did not specify which portions of these enactments they were claiming were too vague. Their own vagueness in this regard is unhelpful. It is not the Court’s role to hunt through the law to try to find a defence for an accused,” the document read.
It noted that the judge tried to find whether or not there was any merit to those claims, but it said the argument of unconstitutional vagueness was dismissed.
The judgement addressed a list of other arguments made by the defendants, but ultimately the defendants’ application to exclude evidence was dismissed.
“That evidence clearly establishes that the defendants committed the offence with which they are charged. None of their other arguments have been made out. I therefore find the defendants guilty as charged.”
The fine for breaking a PHO is $2,800.
Comments